For the first time in modern history an international treaty has achieved universal acceptance. The recent accessions by the Republic of Nauru and the Republic of Montenegro to the 1949 Geneva Conventions confirm the status of these conventions as the most widely accepted international treaties and represent a landmark in the development of protection for victims of armed conflict. . . . Nauru acceded to the four Geneva Conventions on 27 June and Montenegro on 2 August, bringing the number of States party to these instruments to 194.

So let me get this straight. As of May 2006, the United States owed fewer protections to soldiers of Nauru and Montenegro than we owed to soldiers of Al Qaeda? Such would seem to follow from the Hamdan Court's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.

Mr. Gittings, you are being rude, abusive and ignorant. My comment above has absolutely nothing to do with whether I believe the United States SHOULD treat Al Qaeda prisoners in conformity with how we treat prisoners from elsewhere. My comment deals with whether the United States is bound by treaty to do so. FYI, the law is not the same thing as what I would like the law to be. Sadly, you make no such fine distinctions.

For purposes of the remainder of this comment, I will imagine that you actually asked me to elaborate on why I disagree with the Hamdan Court's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. I’m so glad you asked, Mr. Gittings.

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War says:

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Thus, until May of 2006, nations holding soldiers from Nauru and Montenegro were not bound by the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of those soldiers, unless Nauru and Montenegro behaved reciprocally. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court now says in its Hamdan decision that nations who hold soldiers from Al Qaeda are bound by the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of those soldiers, even though Al Qaeda does not treat prisoners in a reciprocal manner. Surely you do not consider beheadings to conform with the Geneva Conventions, do you Mr. Gittings?

The Supreme Court minority disagreed with the majority, arguing that a reasonable treaty interpretation made by the President is entitled to some respect. However, the minority did acknowledge that the majority’s interpretation was reasonable too. I’m not sure that I agree with the minority on that point. The majority’s reasoning not only leads to the conundrum mentioned above concerning Nauru and Montenegro, but has other fatal flaws as well.

Article 3 of the Treaty says that, “In the case of armed conflict NOT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum” certain protections. The Hamdan Court held that the battle with Al Qaeda is not “of an international character” even though it spans the globe. In this, I think the Court was clearly wrong.

The meaning of the phrase “international character” is clear from Article 125 of the Treaty:

“[R]epresentatives of religious organizations, relief societies, or any other organization assisting prisoners of war, shall receive … all necessary facilities for visiting the prisoners…. Such societies or organizations may be constituted in the territory of the Detaining Power or in any other country, or they may have an INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER.”

There is no way that the framers of the Geneva Convention meant the words “international character” to require membership of nation-states. The commentaries to Article 125 confirm this:

“The societies of ‘an international character’ will be essentially international federations made up of several national societies pursuing the same aims. During the Second World War, there were many instances of relief societies of various kinds combining their efforts in a search for greater efficiency and establishing international organizations to co-ordinate their activities and to collect and forward their consignments. It is such federations as well as essentially international societies which are referred to here.”

Regarding Article 3, the commentaries again confirm that the article was not meant to cover transnational conflicts:

“Speaking generally, it must be recognized that the conflicts referred to in Article 3 are armed conflicts, with 'armed forces' on either side engaged in 'hostilities' -- conflicts, in short, which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A SINGLE COUNTRY.”

Perhaps you would be kind enough, Mr. Gittings, to pinpoint in my two comments the “lies” which you accuse me of telling. Frankly, if you cannot do so, then I would think you merit the description of a “slobbering neo-fascist hypocrite” who should “crawl back under your rock.” Shame on you, Mr. Gittings.

Prior to June 2006, Montengro was part of Yugoslavia, which was a party to Geneva. I'm not certain Montenegro stopped being a party on independence either. They might, as a matter of int'l law, retain some of Yugoslavia's treaty obligations (not sure); they might also be stuck with Geneva if they are a party to an unresolved armed conflict (very sure)... and since you bring it up, Montenegro was a party to Geneva I (1864) and Hague II (1899) *before* they got screwed out of their independence at Versailles.

As for Nauru, they don't actually have an army - just a small police force and an informal defense agreement with Australia, who is a party to Geneva.

Now are you actually worried about the possibility of Montenegro and Nauru forming an "Axis of Evil II" and declaring war on the United States? No.

Is the United States under Bush and Cheney actually obeying the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war? No again.

Geneva doesn't say anything about beheadings per se; doesn't say anything about lethal injections either. It does however say something about fair trials and the humane treatment of prisoners.

The Supreme Court did not actually resolve the question of how much Geneva protection Mr. Hamdan has; what they said was that the minimum standard that would apply to a US military trial was CA3 and that the Bush "military commissions" were illegal even by those minimal requirements.

As a matter of fact, the lower courts have analysed things under CA2, just as you are doing, and by that standard, Mr. Hamdan is protected as a civilian by Geneva IV.

There is simply is no "conundrum" here: you, the Bush administration, and the Hamdan minority are all advocating WAR CRIMES in violation of 18 USC 2441, etc.

Claiming that "international" is defined by art. 125 is a good example of your dishonesty. Armed conflicts are NOT organizations, and the Geneva definition of an international armed conflict (or *occupation*) is stated (quite clearly) by CA2, NOT art. 125.

Charles, you are correct that my first quote was from Article 2 rather than Article 3. However, that slight error of mine does not affect the argument I was making.

You bring up the recent history of Nauru and Montenegro. But, for many years after Article 3 was adopted in 1949, there were dozens of countries in the same position as Nauru and Montenegro were in until this month. Those dozens of countries were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, for decades. It is absurd to suggest that the original authors of the Treaty wanted soldiers from those dozens of non-signatory countries to have FEWER rights than soldiers of transnational terrorist organizations.

You now accuse me of advocating war crimes. Do you also accuse the International Committee of the Red Cross of advocating war crimes as well? As I quoted above, their commentaries on article 3 state:

“Speaking generally, it must be recognized that the conflicts referred to in Article 3 are armed conflicts, with 'armed forces' on either side engaged in 'hostilities' -- conflicts, in short, which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A SINGLE COUNTRY.”

Are they all war criminals, just like me?

You have no earthly idea whether I approve of the way prisoners have been treated at Guantanamo, or anywhere else. All I have said is that Article 3 doesn't apply to those prisoners at Guantanamo, any more than it applies to prisoners at San Quentin, or applies to astronauts on the Moon.

You say that the Geneva definition of an international armed conflict is stated by Article 2, rather than Article 125. Strange, then, isn’t it that Article 2 never once uses the word “international” much less the phrase “international character”? The only other Article that uses that distinctive phrase is Article 125, which you would have us all ignore (as the U.S. Supreme Court did). Of course, you are correct that armed conflicts are not organizations, but Al Qaeda is an organization, isn’t it? It’s one thing for you to disagree with using the definition in Article 125, but it’s quite another for you to say that using the definition in Article 125 is "dishonest." Some day, go take a look at the Oxford English Dictionary, where you will find that every word is defined by reference to how it is used in various contexts --- and that is hardly “dishonest.” Nothing could be more honest than trying to understand the phrase "international character" in Article 3 by seeing how it is used elsewhere in the Treaty. But even if that phrase had been used nowhere else in the Treaty, there is still the absurdity that your interpretation would bestow preferential treatment on Al Qaeda as compared to the dozens of non-signatory countries that the authors of the Treaty surely and explicitly anticipated.

If one of us is guilty of any crime, it would be the crime of pretending that a Treaty that obviously means one thing actually means something else entirely.

* "It is absurd to suggest that the original authors of the Treaty wanted soldiers from those dozens of non-signatory countries to have FEWER rights than soldiers of transnational terrorist organizations."

Then quit suggesting it -- it's just a straw-man argument.

I make no such claim. Have you read the Declaration of Independence, the IMT Charter, or the UN UDHR?

My claim is that everyone has the same basic human rights without exception, even criminals like Osama Bin Ladin and Dick Cheney. Geneva's initial purpose was quite clear: "Wounded or sick combatants, to whatever nation they may belong, shall be collected and cared for." Geneva 1864, art. 6.

* "Are they all war criminals, just like me?"

Of course not: when you selectively quote someone in order to misrepresent their views, it's your fraud, not their war crime. To wit:

"What is meant by "armed conflict not of an international character"? The expression is so general, so vague, that many of the delegations feared that it might be taken to cover any act committed by force of arms -- any form of anarchy, rebellion, or even plain banditry. For example, if a handful of individuals were to rise in rebellion against the State and attack a police station, would that suffice to bring into being an armed conflict within the meaning of the Article? In order to reply to questions of this sort, it was suggested that the term "conflict" should be defined or -- and this would come to the same thing -- that a list should be given of a certain number of conditions on which the application of the Convention would depend. The idea was finally abandoned, and wisely so. Nevertheless, these different - 13 - conditions, although in no way obligatory, constitute convenient criteria, and we therefore think it well to give a list drawn from the various amendments discussed; they are as follows:

(1) That the Party in revolt against the de jure Government possesses an organized military force, an authority responsible for its acts, acting within a determinate territory and having the means of respecting and ensuring respect for the Convention.

(2) That the legal Government is obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military and in possession of a part of the national territory.

(3) (a) That the de jure Government has recognized the insurgents as belligerents; or

(b) That it has claimed for itself the rights of a belligerent; or

(c) That it has accorded the insurgents recognition as belligerents for the purposes only of the present Convention; or

(d) That the dispute has been admitted to the agenda of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations as being a threat to international peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression.

(4) (a) That the insurgents have an organization purporting to have the characteristics of a State.

(b) That the insurgent civil authority exercises de facto authority over the population within a determinate portion of the national territory.

(c) That the armed forces act under the direction of an organized authority and are prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war.

(d) That the insurgent civil authority agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Convention.

"Does this mean that Article 3 is not applicable in cases where armed strife breaks out in a country, but does not fulfil any of the above conditions? We do not subscribe to this view. We think, on the contrary, that the scope of application of the Article must be as wide as possible. There can be no drawbacks in this, since the Article in its reduced form, contrary to what might be thought, does not in any way limit the right of a State to put down rebellion, nor does it increase in the slightest the authority of the rebel party. It merely demands respect for certain rules, which were already recognized as essential in all civilized countries, and embodied in the national legislation of the States in question, long before the Convention was signed. What Government would dare to claim before the world, in a case of civil disturbances which could justly be described as mere acts of banditry, that, Article 3 not being applicable, it was entitled to leave the wounded uncared for, to torture and mutilate prisoners and take hostages? No Government can object to observing, in its dealings with enemies, whatever the nature of the conflict between it and them, a few essential rules which it in fact observes daily, under its own laws, when dealing with common criminals. "Speaking generally, it must be recognized that the conflicts referred to in Article 3 are armed conflicts, with 'armed forces' on either side engaged in 'hostilities' -- conflicts, in short, which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place within the confines of a single country."

ICRC Commentary Geneva III POWs, at 35-37.

* "You have no earthly idea whether I approve of the way prisoners have been treated at Guantanamo, or anywhere else. All I have said is that Article 3 doesn't apply to those prisoners at Guantanamo, any more than it applies to prisoners at San Quentin, or applies to astronauts on the Moon."

Oh, well feel free to surprise me and tell me all about what you think is wrong with Guantanamo Bay, but you aren't paying attention: the court didn't resolve whether CA3 applies, it just said CA3 was the minimum that would apply and that the "military tribunals" were illegal.

In fact, the prisoners are protected under CA2, not CA3.

* "You say that the Geneva definition of an international armed conflict is stated by Article 2, rather than Article 125. Strange, then, isn’t it that Article 2 never once uses the word "international" much less the phrase "international character"?

There's nothing strange about it, you just don't like what CA2 and CA3 actually say -- you're too busy trying to make 1 + 1 = 0 or 3 or anything else just as long as it isn't 2.

This is very simple: if it's an armed conflict, it's either under CA2 or CA3. There aren't any exceptions, and it isn't just a matter of Geneva, it's a matter of the IMT Charter, Hague IV (1907), US General Order No. 100 (1863), and customary law. And the US Code.

There is nothing in ANY law that would permit the President, you, or anyone else to treat any human being as an animal. There is nothing in the Constitution that would permit the President to function as a Roman Imperator completely outside the law. Not in peace, not in war.

* "If one of us is guilty of any crime, it would be the crime of pretending that a Treaty that obviously means one thing actually means something else entirely."

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

As I understand it, you’re saying that parties were meant to be bound by the convention in relation to non-parties, even if the latter do NOT accept or apply the provisions thereof. This is absurd.

The commentaries say:

“Speaking generally, it must be recognized that the conflicts referred to in Article 3 are armed conflicts, with 'armed forces' on either side engaged in 'hostilities' -- conflicts, in short, which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place within the confines of a single country."

As I understand it, you’re saying that the conflicts referred to in Article 3 include armed conflicts which do not take place within the confines of a single country. Yet you deny that the commentaries say otherwise. This is absurd.

Your sentiments are admirable, to the extent that you are seeking to help people who are being mistreated. But your insults and distortions are beneath contempt.

I think the focus of this argument is far too narrow. I think the crux of the dispute is this statement:

As I understand it, you’re saying that parties were meant to be bound by the convention in relation to non-parties, even if the latter do NOT accept or apply the provisions thereof. This is absurd.

I don't actually care what the treaties say. In my view, governments ARE bound by standards of decency even if "non-parties" don't accept or apply those standards. This is not because of any law or treaty, it's because that's what, fundamentally, separates legitimate governments from the criminals in our midst.

I don't expect criminals to abide by standards. That's what makes them criminals. I do expect governments to do so; that's why I'm willing to give them certain powers to protect me from the criminals. It would be pointless for me to give government such power if government were then to behave just like the criminals.

Governments which behave like criminals are not "tough", they aren't "protecting" me, they aren't even effective. They're just criminals themselves with more power. They're beneath contempt.

That's because the Bush Administration is morally wrong no matter what. If you want to debate this like Stephen Douglas on slavery, resting your political conclusion on narrow legalisms, I'm more than happy to play the Lincoln role. Less eloquently, perhaps.

It happens every time. Some lefty disagrees with me, and pretty soon I'm no better than Lincoln's nemesis who wanted people to be able to have slaves.

Mark, what on God’s green Earth makes you think that I have the slightest sympathy with slavery? What gives you the slightest reason to think that I would have opposed the provision of the Missouri Compromise that banned slavery on federal territory? Lincoln supported the ban, and Douglas opposed it. Lincoln was right.

Lincoln supported the ban because it was a valid piece of federal legislation. I agree with Lincoln.

Lincoln opposed the overturning of that ban by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott; Lincoln thought the Court’s due process argument was wrong. Lincoln wrote that, "[t]he Constitution itself impliedly admits that a person may be deprived of property by 'due process of law.'" I agree with Lincoln, not Douglas.

Perhaps you think that vicious smears are a legitimate way to win an argument. They're not.

Lincoln wasn’t arguing (as you are) that his personal moral views ought to be adopted by the US Supreme Court despite what the law says. Lincoln was saying the opposite: that it was the Supreme Court that was acting in violation of the law. Lincoln urged the Court to uphold the law regardless of whether the Court thought the law was wrong.

In his first inaugural address, here’s what Lincoln said about the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution, which Lincoln personally believed was a horrible law:

"It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause 'shall be deliver up' their oaths are unanimous."

Lincoln was NOT saying to citizens that they should ignore laws with which they disagree, and much less was he saying that judges should ignore them. Lincoln got rid of slavery the legal way. Ever heard of the Thirteenth Amendment?

Andrew, you missed the point. I'm not saying you're in favor of slavery. I'm using the Lincoln-Douglas situation as an analogy to the argument you DO seem to be making: justifying the Administration's torture of prisoners on a narrow, legalistic basis. To spell it out:

Lincoln:slavery::Mark:tortureDouglas:slavery::Andrew:torture

The only significant difference is that Justice Stevens has more character, and better legal reasoning skills, than Justice Taney did.

I'm sorry if you felt my argument was "morally superior". It's just that opposing torture IS morally superior to, well, any other position on the subject.

Lincoln was NOT saying to citizens that they should ignore laws with which they disagree, and much less was he saying that judges should ignore them.

How many slaves did the Lincoln Administration send South pursuant to the Fugitive Slave law?

I think this ignores some essential facts like the Union Army and the Emancipation Proclamation. However, I won't quibble on it. I just have one question: What specific words in the Constitution give the President the power to torture people? I'm just asking so we can word the amendment properly.

Oh, and I wanted to add to my previous post that it should be clear that the party which "doesn't care about treaties" is the Administration. No sooner did the Supreme Court reject its bad faith interpretation of its treaty obligations than the Administration proceeded not to actually, you know, abide by them, but to ask Congress for exceptions. Beneath contempt.

Mark, I am NOT justifying the Administration's torture of prisoners on a narrow, legalistic basis or on any other basis. I am saying that the treaty in question is inapplicable, just like the lyrics of some Beatles song are inapplicable, and the script of some TV commercial is inapplicable, to the question of how Al Qaeda prisoners may be legally treated at Guantanamo. Personally, I think that the Eighth Amendment IS applicable, but the Court apparently did not see an Eighth Amendment violation.

Aside from the Eighth Amendment, Congress has unfettered discretion to evaluate the situation and to tell the President what kinds of interrogation techniques are allowed and disallowed, without being obligated one way or the other by this Treaty. The Supreme Court had no legitimate authority to butt in by twisting a Treaty to say something that the Treaty manifestly does not say. Congress has authority to define what is or is not “torture,” and to say under what extreme conditions “torture” might be allowed, within the limits of the Eighth Amendment.

I made clear already in this thread that, “You have no earthly idea whether I approve of the way prisoners have been treated at Guantanamo, or anywhere else. All I have said is that Article 3 doesn't apply ….” It is FALSE for you to say that I am “justifying the Administration's torture of prisoners.” How many times do I have to spell this out?

Mark, the administration adopted an interpretation of its treaty obligations that is the same interpretation as that adopted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (see commentaries on Article 3). The administration decided to treat Al Qaeda like a nation that has declined to abide by the Geneva Conventions (see Article 2 of the Treaty). They decided to treat Al Qaeda as an organization of “international character” (see Article 125 of the Treaty). For you to say that the administration interpreted the treaty in bad faith is absurd.

And I wonder what other parts of Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address you think were lies, in addition to the portion I quoted.

* "As I understand it, you’re saying that parties were meant to be bound by the convention in relation to non-parties, even if the latter do NOT accept or apply the provisions thereof. This is absurd."

No, it's just the plain meaning of CA3:

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions [...]"

CA3 refers to conflicts "occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties of a GENEVA High Contracting Party ("HCP").

CA3 cannot refer to any conflict *between* two HCPs, because any such conflict would fall under CA2.

Hence, CA3 only refers to armed conflicts where one or more PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT are NOT HCPs.

It follows that the only possible cases are 1) non-HCP rebels fighting the HCP government, or 2) independent non-HCP militas fighting each other while the HCP government remains neutral.

And CA3 states unambiguously that "EACH Party to the conflict shall be bound" without further qualification.

QED. (And try reading the rest of the Commentary on CA3 instead of regurgitating Rivkin and Casey's fruadulent goo already.)

This is not an occult proposition either -- the fact that people commit crimes does not nullify the criminal laws.

* "As I understand it, you’re saying that the conflicts referred to in Article 3 include armed conflicts which do not take place within the confines of a single country. Yet you deny that the commentaries say otherwise. This is absurd."

Well you DON'T understand it, mostly because you don't want to.

We are NOT talking about MY claims here, were talking about DOJs fraudulent BS. CA2 is the applicable law; Afghanistan was and is an international armed conflict or occupation, and Geneva I-IV apply in full, PERIOD.

Or would you rather treat it all as a law enforcement matter? Fine with me.

As for CA3, the text of the convention is very clear, and so is the comprehensive dishonesty of DOJ's brief. The only reason CA3 even comes up is the administration's fraudulent argument's.

Facts are not insults: you are apologising for WAR CRIMINALS who are guitly of the same crimes that we tried the Nazis for at Nuremberg, and the Supreme Court's reasoning on CA3 was absolutely correct.

Charles, I don’t know who “Rivkin and Casey” are, so I can hardly “regurgitate” what they’ve said.

Guantanamo is a far cry from Auschwitz, and anyone with any grasp of reality would realize that.

The following insults of yours from earlier in this thread are disgusting, and I should probably know better than to converse with such an unapologetic mudslinger:

“you [are] demented right-wing hypocrites”

“You people are no better than Nazis … drooling about the Geneva Conventions. You creeps should crawl back under your rocks …”

You say in your most recent comment that, “CA2 is the applicable law; Afghanistan was and is an international armed conflict or occupation, and Geneva I-IV apply in full, PERIOD.” Well, that’s an interesting proposition. Certainly it’s different from what the Supreme Court said in Hamdan. The Court said that Common Article 3 applies, rather than Article 2. Apparently, we both disagree with the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision, for different reasons.

I’m not going to address your contention that CA2 instead of CA3 applies to Al Qaeda, because I’ve got other stuff to do right now. However, you would have saved us both considerable time if you had made clear at the outset that you disagree with the Court’s application of CA3 (as opposed to CA2) with respect to Al Qaeda prisoners.

And I wonder what other parts of Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address you think were lies...

I'd call that a pretty radical interpretation of my text.

For you to say that the administration interpreted the treaty in bad faith is absurd.

The interpretation it advanced was not in support of some abstract academic debate, it was for the sole purpose of treating prisoners in violation of fundamental human rights, including torture. That alone makes it bad faith, regardless of the abstract legal merits.

Let's look at the Administration's other behavior too. It tried to deceive the courts about the charges against Padilla in a desperate attempt to avoid a hearing on the merits. It got its lackeys in Congress to deprive the courts of jurisdiction to hear claims that it was violating fundamental human rights. It advanced untenable legal theories in public while soft-peddling those arguments in court in order to avoid any real determination of the meritless nature of its political spin. That's more evidence of bad faith.

Not one single justice on the SCOTUS accepted the Administration's strained interpretation of CA3. IIRC, neither did the Court of Appeals, which, again IIRC, decided Hamdan on procedural grounds. The District Court, of course, blasted the Administration's position. An argument so utterly without merit does not deserve to be considered as made in good faith. This is all the more true in light of the factors mentioned above.

The Supreme Court had no legitimate authority to butt in by twisting a Treaty to say something that the Treaty manifestly does not say.

Neither part of this is a serious contention.

How many times do I have to spell this out?

If you want to avoid having your position misunderstood, you should not waste your time defending the Administration when its conduct is utterly and completely indefensible. You'll still have plenty to do defending it against ordinary charges of corruption, incompetence, and moral bankruptcy.

Mark, in a previous comment you asked, “How many slaves did the Lincoln Administration send South pursuant to the Fugitive Slave law?” I took this as questioning whether Lincoln actually meant what he said in his first inaugural address, about complying with the Fugitive Slave Clause. I can see no other reason why you would ask such a question.

You also say that this administration’s interpretation of the Geneva Conventions was for the “sole purpose of treating prisoners in violation of fundamental human rights, including torture.” However, the Hamdan case was about the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear. I think it’s presumptuous for you to say that the administration was merely being bloodthirsty and hateful, rather than being sincerely concerned about divulging military secrets during the course of a prosecution.

Even more troubling is your contention that the interpretation of a law or treaty should depend upon the results of that interpretation. Even lowly scoundrels should get the benefit of applicable laws, regardless of whether Mark thinks they morally deserve that benefit or not. If the plain meaning of a law can be ignored whenever doing so works against people who are sleazy or scummy or what have you, then a fundamental pillar of civilization will be destroyed. Your rule of interpretation seems to be: interpret a law however necessary to damage the Bush administration. In that case, there’s no point in having laws in the first place --- we could just let judges decide as they please.

As far as Padilla is concerned, I don’t know much about that case. But I do know you're wrong about Hamdan. You say that “Not one single justice on the SCOTUS accepted the Administration's strained interpretation of CA3.” That’s simply not true. The minority said, “The President's interpretation of Common Article 3 is reasonable and should be sustained. The conflict with al Qaeda is international in character in the sense that it is occurring in various nations around the globe. Thus, it is also ‘occurring in the territory of’ more than ‘one of the High Contracting Parties.’”

Mark, you say that I “should not waste [my] time defending the Administration when its conduct is utterly and completely indefensible.” I’m curious. Are you also of the opinion that common criminals are entitled to no legal defense either? That they deserve whatever they get? It's curious you feel that way about Bush rather than Al Qaeda (I feel that way about neither).

* "I don’t know who "Rivkin and Casey" are, so I can hardly "regurgitate" what they've said."

Oh sure you can, easy as pie -- all you have to do is lap up predigested slime from the mouths of Thomas and Scalia.

* "Guantanamo is a far cry from Auschwitz, and anyone with any grasp of reality would realize that."

Oh, as if your self-serving lies are anything like "reality". In fact, the two camps have quite a bit in common, including the basic purpose of committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against unlawfully detained prisoners, and the nauseating similarity of the slogans at the front gate ("Honor Bound to Defend Freedom" and "Arbeit Macht Frei").

* "The following insults [blah blah blah]..."

Accurate descriptions are not insults, and I'm no more interested in your phony posturing BS than I am in the opinions of anyone who believes it. So spare me the hot air:

As long as you keep on spewing BS, I'm going to rub your nose in it.

* "Well, that’s an interesting proposition. Certainly it’s different from what the Supreme Court said in Hamdan. The Court said that Common Article 3 applies, rather than Article 2. Apparently, we both disagree with the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision, for different reasons."

No, that isn't what they said, and no, I don't disagree with their opinion, for reasons that I have already explained.

Now quit trying to put words in my mouth, quit with the BS, and GET REAL.

You also say that this administration’s interpretation of the Geneva Conventions was for the “sole purpose of treating prisoners in violation of fundamental human rights, including torture.” However, the Hamdan case was about the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear.

Convicting someone without giving him the chance to see or hear the evidence against him IS a violation of fundamental human rights. And let's not kid ourselves -- the issue of torture was the camel in the tent in Hamdan.

Even more troubling is your contention that the interpretation of a law or treaty should depend upon the results of that interpretation.

That's not my contention. My contention is that asserting petty legalisms in the face of indisputable moral evil is itself a moral wrong. In a sincere effort to avoid Godwin, I'll just use as a comparison Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy which led to the Trail of Tears. Defending Jackson by arguing that the Supreme Court "butted in" and "twisted" the law would be morally obtuse.

Even lowly scoundrels should get the benefit of applicable laws, regardless of whether Mark thinks they morally deserve that benefit or not.

False analogy. Accused criminals get two basic rights: procedural due process; and the substantive right to have guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, guilt is not in issue -- the Administration admits, nay repellantly brags that it's torturing people and depriving them of other fundamental rights. As for procedural due process rights, the Administration has none and hasn't even asserted any. Its ONLY "defense" consists in trying desperately to prevent courts from hearing its bad faith claims.

It's curious you feel that way about Bush rather than Al Qaeda

So much for Godwin. In light of this comment, I think you lost your standing to complain about being compared to Nazis.

But I do know you're wrong about Hamdan.

You are correct that the dissent did agree with the President's interpretation.

"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

To sneakily use one's official office as a judge to break an unjust law, while avoiding any penalty, is expressing the greatest disrespect for law, IMHO.